\ 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0013703 1127 



I 



Hollinger Corp. 



; 512 

C44 
lopy 1 




LE TTER O F- 

JUDGE CHAMBERS, 

TO THE CITIZENS OF KENT. 

To mij Fellow-Citizens of Kent County : 

Unwilling to have mj conduct so far misrepresented as it has been 
m relation to certain matlers of late occurrence, I have to ask your 
attention to the following narrative: 

On the day after the Meeting at the Court House, on the 5th of 
February last, I left home for Cecil Court, and after being there for a 
week, went to Baltimore, and was there detained another week. On 
my return, I found the columns of the Kmi News, issued duriu"- these 
two weeks, teeming with offensive remarks, which apparently indicate 
a deliberate purpose to place me before you in such a position as to 
lessen your respect for my character and judgment. 

Why such an effort should be made, may well be thought strano-e by 
those acquamted with the fact, that there is no office in the gift o"f the 
Government that I would accept, and that I have had nothmo- to do 
with either the Democratic or the American party. Whether personal 
enmity has thus sought an outlet, by insidiously inflaming the excite- 
ment everywhere existing, and artfully directing it against me, you must 
decide. It requires less cunning than falls to the lot of some men to 
know that a wise discretion, or a calm judgment, is not the peculiar 
chai-acteristic of a community in the highest state of fermentation. 

How far the facts of the case sanction the statements made or the - 
political heresies imputed or inferred, it is my purpose now' to de- i 
monstrate. 

The first publi.shed declaration of my views on the pendino- crisis \ 
was m the copy of an answer to a letter received from an old Friend in 
Boston who had asked me to express them. See " Eml News of 8th 3 
December last." 

It was not only considered sound doctrine, but I was asked by the r 
Editors to allow my name to be given as the author, that it might have 
more effect than an anonymous pi-oduction. If that letter was censured! 
by any member of either the American or the Democratic party I amn 
yet to learn the fact. It not only escaped censure, but received warn 
commendation from sundry persons who have since found it expedier to 
as I learn, to use quite different language in relation to similar opinis or 
subsequently published. 



MuBiuT & CO. Priaters. Publishers and iiook.ellere, 182 Balti^^WFr ratt. Baltimoro . 






Now, in that letter, these points are distinctly taken — 

1st. That the North had, for a scries of years, pursued a system of 
aggression on our property and our feelings, and perilling not only our 
persons but our lives. 

2(11 y. That the continuance of this system involved, as an obvious 
necessity, sooner or later, resistance by the South, and actual 
collision. 

3(lly. That this state of resistance and collision, although prema- 
turely precipitated, and regretted, was now actually upon us, and must 
be met, and could only end in concession by the North, or the separa- 
tion of the South. 

4thly. That in the event of such separation being forced upon the 
South, Maryland most certainly would go with the South, or with the 
Border States. 

No sane man can fail to find all this in that letter. 

Some time after this, a meeting of the Citizens of the County, per- 
fectly irrespective of party, was called, and held on the 8th January 
last. With a full knowledge of my views, and with a perfect know- 
ledge that I was the author of that letter, I was urged by the members 
of that meeting — all parties uniting in the request, to preside. The 
Committee that called upon me, consisted of gentlemen of the Demo- 
cratic, the American, the Breckenridge, the Bell and the Douglas 
parties. 

I addressed that meeting, and expressed exactly such opinions as my 
letter contained. The remarks then made were well received, and as 
far as I knew met with universal acceptance. 

Amongst the Resolutions at that meeting, passed, as the News stated, 

hy acclamation, will be found embodied the same sentiments. All this 

while my course was commended, and you will look in vain to the 

columns of the News for any censure. We diflered honestly and with 

)erfcct charity about the advantage of a Convention. I thought and 

aid the most likely means of composing the existing difTicultics would 

3 to have agents, discreet and prudent men, with full authority to 

present the State, who should meet and confer with similar repre- 
tatives from other States, particularly the Border States, and con- 
'e some plan or basis of settlement^£:uch authority could only be 



given by a Convention. At the same time, I was perfectly willing to 
admit the equal sincerity and patriotism of those who differed with 
p me, as I knew some of my best friends did. At the meeting of the 8th 

^ January, a large majority expressed, on this point, an opinion different 

from my own, and I challenge any man to say he ever heard me im- 
peach the conduct or the motives of any one voter on that occasion. 

I repeat, then, except in regard to this honest difference of opinion 
as to the best mode of accomplishing what we all aimed at, not one 
word of exception was heard as to my addresses or resolutions, but on 
the contrary commendation was expressed, certainly in the News. 

Now, in what particular have my addresses or resolutions made and 
offered since that time been changed or altered ? I defy the worst ene- 
my I have to point to any. I addressed a meeting in Kent on the 
6th February, another on the 9th, another in Baltimore on the 18th. 
No truthful man who heard them will say they expressed any different 
sentiment. And yet now it seems good to some folks to sneer and m- 
smuate, and falsify my course. Some writer in the Kent News expends 
column after column in fault finding. Apparently unwilling to make 
a direct assertion, boldly and like a man conscious of speaking the 
truth, and disclaiming any purpose to impute "intentional unfairness," 
the writer talks of my '' managing in a very extraordinary mamicr ;'' how 
correctly will be seen presently. 

The meeting which I attended on the 5th of February was called by 
a number of us, for the purpose of appointing delegates to the Con- 
ference Convention to be held in Baltimore. 

One of our Eesolutions expressly limited the authority of that Con- 
ference Convention, to propose to the people the question of a Sover- 
eign Convention, not to "call a Convention," as many of you have been 
made to believe— but simply to propose that the people, meaning a 
majority of all the legal voters of the State, should say whether a 
Sovereign Convention should be convened. 

Surely, if the people of the State want such a Convention, they have 
a right to convene it. But how are their opinions to be known ? only 
by submitting the question to them — inviting them to express their 
opinions. 

Exactly as the Union Meeting of the 9th February was got up. A 
few gentlemen proposed to the Union men of Kent to meet at a certain 
time and place. 

To this invitation they could respond by coming, or by declining to 
come— and when they came they could do what the call proposed, or 
decline it. 



Indeed this case is stronger, inasmuch as here the call invites the 
people to meet— assuming their willingness, without previous con- 
sultation with a majority of them, whereas no Sovereign Covention was 
to be hold until after a majority of the voters had sanctioned it. 

From the date of this call, the venom of the writers for the News 
seems to have been in a state of active fermentation ; and I regret being 
obliged to say, has been indulged at the expense of truth, in regard to 
facts°which could not be unintentionally perverted. The man, whoever 
he may be, that intimated unfairness or covert design, and he who 
sneakingly insinuated, by putting in the mouth of '' sovie persons,'' that 
I made a Secession speech, as well as he who would have his readers 
suppose my address, then, or at any time, breathed Union sentiments, 
" here and there" only, and of course was of an opposite character 
everywhere else— these persons, I am obliged to believe, wilfully and 
deliberately designed to express what is not only not true in point of 
iact, but what was at the time known to them to be untrue. If these 
were the only instances of injustice and untruth, a large amount of 
charity might palliate the oflence, but these writers have committed 
the same perversions of fact in otiicr respects, where it would seem ta 
be impossible to mistatc, except by design. The person who prepared 
for publication the proceedings of the meeting of the 9th February, 
has not permitted the resolution there offered by me to appear as part 
ol- tliose proceedings. That resolution was leit in the hands of the 
presiding officer, and as he has informed me, was passed over with the 
otncr papers, to be arranged for publication. There has been "a heap 
of talk," and no small amount of writing about it. Why not pub- 
lish it? 

1 have, since my return, procured the original, of which here is an 

exact copy : 

Resolved, That while we declare our devoted attachment to the 
Union, as'the source of our multiplied blessings, religious, political, 
social and personal, and our utter unwillingness to unite with what we 
regard as unwarranted attempts to separate from it : We yet fool bound 
to°declare, that if the North persistently refuse to accord to us, in com- 
mon with our Sister Slave States, the practical security for our pro- 
perty which the Constitution contemplates and demands, we must in 
that event unite our fortunes for weal or for woe, with our Sister Bor- 
der States of the South. 

Now, the essence of this is simply, that if the North persists in re- 
fusincr to us our Constitutional Rights, and orily in that event, the honor 



and dignity of tlie State demand of us not to submit, nor longer remain 
with them. Who will dare openly express the contrary opinion ? The 
president of that very meeting, Col. Ricaud, whose opening speech is 
so justly commended, used the precise expression — remain in the 
Union as long as the Honor and Dignity of the State permitted. Dr. 
Valk expressed the same sentiment, and has not everywhere the same 
language been held by every one ? Grovernor Hicks says, " after allow- 
ing a reasonable time for action on the pait of the Northern States, if 
they shall neglect or refuse to observe the plain requirements of the 
Constitution ; then, in my judgment, we shall be fully warranted in 
demanding a division of the Country." " The South can honorably 
take such steps as patriotism and honor may demand, either in or out 
of the Union." Again, he says, " I will be the last one to object to a 
withdrawal of our State from a Confederacy that denies to us the en- 
joyment of our undoubted rights." Again, "Believing that the in- 
terests of Maryland were bound up with those of the Border Slave- 
holding States," he had been engaged in correspondence, &c. 

Once more, " If we find hereafter that the North shall, after due 
deliberation refuse to give chem (guarantees to the Border Slave States,) 
we will in a united body demand and receive a fair division of the 
National Domain." How is it that all the time Governor Hicks is the 
model of a pure patriotic Union loving man, the object of the highest 
admiration, while I am the object of the severest rebuke, and censure 
for holding the same opinions ? Has any of the Neivs writers charged 
him with " arraying the South against the North " — " and arguing with 
force what some were uncharitable enough to say savored ol secession 
doctrine." Was he asked if his meaning was " that we have been 
living degraded and dishonored?" "Does he mean unless Congress 
pass some law about the Territories, we should go out of the Union?" 
and others of like character, all which it was of course intended the 
reader should understand as vile heresies, affirmed by me. Was Gov- 
ernor Hicks taunted with the question "what has the 'National Gov- 
ernment' done to cause it to be destroyed?" and with the limping 
concession — as of the 07il>/ offence by the Northern States — that they 
have acted outrageously and shamefully in ])assing " personal liberty 
bills," with the immediately following salvo however, "Rhode Island 
has repealed hers, and other States are about following her example." 
So far from it, the Governor has been the theme of unmeasured praise, 
and the air has been made vocal, by cheers and shouts, from these 
identical persons, who are pursuing me with an apparently determined 
purpose to deprive me of all claim to your confidence. I have instanced 



6 

the opinions expressed bj Governor Ilicks, and might transcribe simi- 
lar opinions from every meeting held through the State — numerous as 
they have been, and of every distinguished man who has spoken — save 
only the meeting in Kent, on the 9th February, and one of the speakers 
at that meeting. What says Mr. Harris, the respected member of Con- 
gress, representing Baltimore, from whose late speech the Neics has 
given large extracts, in which he says he is "a Southern man— born 
so, and proud of his nativity," " my State " says he, " is a Southern 
State." " Her sympathies of blood, of sentiment, of geographical posi- 
tion ; her large possession of slave property, equal to 40 millions of 
dollars, the interests of trade between her commercial emporium and 
the South, amounting in the last year to over a hundred million of 
•lollai-s out of an aggregate of $168,000,000; the great interests of her 
inanufVictures, of which forty-five million went last year to the South 
and the South-west from the city of Baltimore alone : all these give 
weight to the Southern sentiment of her people"— he tells them of the 
conservative character of our people, and their devotion to the Union, 
yet he tells them, if they think that the State can be held in that poise 
by their taUcm^, "they misread the record of the times," and "he be- 
lieves this statement will apply with equal force to every one of the 
Border Slave States of the Union. 

Now this is commended in this same paper, and far be it from me to 
deny the justice of this commendation, yet it is quite a natural question, 
why so heartily praise sentiments exactly similar to those which draw 
down upon me such a measure of wrath, as can only be satiated by some 
two or three columns of questions, intended to put ray opinions in the 
most odious light, and consequently forfeit my claims to your resj)ect? 

The favorite theme is "Convention is Secession," the Conference 
Convention in Baltimore is a " Secession Convention." It is an easy 
matter, especially with some persons, to give abusive epithets instead 
of sound argument. There is no more reason to designate the Balti- 
more meeting of the 18th a Secession meeting, than there is to call the 
meeting in Kent, of the 9th an abolition meeting. The News says, 
some of the members of that Convention certainly are Secessionists. 
It may be so. Is it not equally certain that some of those present, and 
most noisy at the meeting of the 9th, were abolitionists, some who are 
for remaining with the North, whether we be kicked, cuffed, degraded 
and dishonored or not? That Convention has had its session, its pro- 
ceedings are made public, and the great complaint now is, that it did 
not do any mischief Reasons for its forbearence, very satisfactory to 
such complainants, are manufactured by themselves. They are just as 



ridiculous as the complaint itself. The simple state of the case is this. 
That Convention was intended to put before the people, the majority 
of the legal voters of the State, the important question, whether it was 
proper to convene a Sovereign Convention, so as to place Maryland m the 
most proper position to deal with the existing crisis. Before the day 
of meeting, some of the members had received such information as to 
induce the belief, that the Governor of the State would, by proclama- 
tion, propose this very measure. The Convention, believing that the 
action of the Governor would secure the co-operation of many citizens, 
who would not otherwise promote the object they aimed at, and bemg 
desirous to adopt every means by which a full and fair expression of 
the popular Will could be had, resolved to adjourn to the 12th of 
March to allow time for the Governor to act, at the same time endors- 
ing the proposal of the Governor, should it be made as expected. Is 
there any thing criminal in this ? One would think, if he made the 
tirades in the News^ his only source of knowledge, that to give the 
people an opportunity to say whether they would or would not have a 
Convention, was an overt and direct act of treason. I had supposed 
the people were the Sovereign power, and more, that there is, just now, 
no other power in the State, having competent authority to meet the 
present exigencies of the distracted country. Now suppose these Con- 
vention haters should some of these days, find a proclamation of the 
Governor, calling this so called " Secession body," in other words invit- 
ing the people to express their wishes in regard to it, will they have 
him impeached as a " Traitor," or will they take the back track and 
confess with becoming humility, either that they have been guilty of 
gross slander, or that what is very wrong, when suggested by some other 
person, is a very right thing, if suggested by their friend? If the Gov- 
ernor shall issue such a proclamation, it will no doubt be to increase 
the chances of harmorizino- and settllno; the difficulties that threaten a 
total rupture of the Union, and as the best means of preventing other 
States from seperating, and to bring back those that have seceded ; or 
at all events to avoid civil war and the shedding of blood. 

And is not this exactly what has been the object of those of us who 
arc denounced? At the meeting of the 5th February I stated, as pre- 
siding officer, that these were understood to be the objects of the meet- 
ing. '^Emphatically it was said to x^reserve the Union. Did any one inti- 
mate a contrary opinion? 

Oar resolutions are perfectly consistent with such a purpose, and not 
one word was said, not one thing done to contradict these declarations. 
Yet that meeting is persistently denominated a " Secession " meeting. 



8 

Is it possible to suppose the man who says this, knowing the facts, 
believes what he says? 

Again, at the meeting of the 9th February, I stated the object of the 
Conference Convention to be to preserve not to dismember the Union, 
and that our authority, by the very terms of the resolutions passed on 
the 5th, was limited to the giving an opportunity, to the whole people 
of the State, to say, whether they would or would not have a Conven 
tion. The idea seems to have got into the brain of these writers for the 
News^ that because at a meeting of the citizens of Kent a "majority of 
148 to 87 " determined it was inexpedient to call a Convention, there- 
fore it is treason, or secession, to enquire what opinion is entertained 
by the citizens of other parts of the State. The opinion of Kent is 
always entitled to great respect, but it is rather too much to claim for it 
the power to silence the other counties and cities of the State. All this 
nonsense then, as to the Secession character of the meetins: of the 5th 
in Kent, and that in Baltimore on the 18th, is obviously an affectation, 
and so far as made to reflect upon me as presiding officer, and thereby 
injure my standing with you, must have some concealed and ulterior 
motive. If there could be any doubt about this would it not be dissi- 
pated by what has occurred at and subsequent to the meeting of the 9th 
February? 

The published call for that meeting invited all lovers of the Union 
and tlie Constitution. Time and asfain, it has been the boast of its 
friends, that while that of the 5th was exchisivc, this invitation embraced 
all. Of course I was invited. I entered the hall and took a seat "low 
down " — several of the gentlemen, whose names were attached to the 
call, kindly urged me to take the seat I usually occupy, near the stand, 
and I did so. The meeting being organized, the presiding officer, "Col. 
Ricaud," made an excellent address — a committee was appointed and 
immediatel}'" retired — Dr. Valk was then called out and made a speech, 
which was very well received, and in which I do not recollect any 
thing at which offence could be taken. The committee returned with 
their resolutions, and Mr. Vickers made a very long speech, from notes 
in his hand — apparently very full notes. In the course of this speech, 
the meoting of the 5th, of which I was ])resident, was denounced as a 
Secessionist meeting; the Conference Convention, then to be held ou 
the 18th, to which I was a delegate, Avas denounced as of the same 
stripe, and the precise 7inmhcr o^S]avo holders, ^^men, women and chil<lren,^^ 
so enaphatically and minutely stated, as to leave no doubt on my mind, 
that the census returns had been diligently examined, with a deliberate 
purpose to u.se the Aict in his address, and this statement of the small 



fonotT, t ^[^'■^°^^'"'' »«». "'omen and children, was immediately 
followed by the question, emphatically addressed, "have all the oth^ 
citizens of the County no rights to protect? 

To this speech I felt it my duty to reply, and presuming, however 
erroneously, that I had as much right to the floor L anv oth r present 
permission was asked for a hearing. The formal notice-of the p'roeeed 
ngs, m the Neios of 16th February, does not make the slightest allusion 
to my remarks, or resolution, nor is my name mentioned in it 

paoer'-r; IT' 'T '''"' " '"''' '" "'^ ^''^"''^ P« °f 'te same 
papei, ,t migh have been supposed my remarks would not have been 

1 stened o at all." However that is, the meeting heard me, and sofer 

as I could perceive, respectfully. I avowed myself as much a lover of 

neetfno'of tITn T P^^^™'>. """^""^'^d -7 =o"rse, and that of the 
meeting of the 5th, from aspersions east on it; and attempted to prove 

way to heal the distractions that now prevailed, claiming the authority 

tr ousiv f'"r,rr ■ 7'"""^ ^^ p'™'^'' -^'^^^^ ^^ t«- -d- 

up, without tail, to celebrate and hurra for " glorious Virginia." I also 
rebuked, what appeared to me to be, an attempt to array the other por 

bel eve thr; '"" 1"'"' S'--l>o<"ers, telling them, what I verily 
believe, that they can have no worse enemy than the man who should 

relllt'.r",,''\''?""* "'^^^^^ °' society-that all were essential, 
as elements, without which we conid not exist-Judges, Lawvers Doc 
ors. Carpenters, Butcher.,, and all sorts of trades and business and that 
to quarrel with and injure each other, was as fatal in the body pol tic 

wo:iT'::: :;' "f ■ ^^t^" "''^ ''■''^'•™' '™^^ °f "- bumL' ;„ ;; 

sent , "Z f- ^ "'■"' '""'^ '^'^''"^ '° «--^P^«- -y «tter dis- 

sent „ what appeared to me the tenor of the last mentioned speaker 

to he l^J'"'*' "'■?^^''''°' "''^' "^ -^^'^"''-"^ by a regard exclusive y 
to Her ■pecwaary interest. ' 

I thought and said that at least some share of regard was to be had 

nu t :o"7, ""'.'^'f "y °f "- State; that no individual, or eom- 

m n ly, eould hve in harmony with other.,, who were daily and hourly 

dhfying and abusing their conduct, and their feelings, depriving th m 

sons tha degi-adat.on and disgrace eould no more he suMled toby 
the btate than by individuals. ' 

On taking my seat, the president instantly rose, and, alludin.. to mv 
«atemen that I h.ad been personally assailed, dLsdaimed, in te°m: t"e 
most ll.ittering, any purpose to impeach my character or conduct as a 



10 

pure and patriotic citizen — the difference between us being as to the 
proper mode of meeting the crisis, and he differing most decidedly with 
rae in regard to the propriety of a Convention. Dr. Valk then made a 
similar disclaimer, of any design to say any thing offensive to me, ex- 
pressing like confidence in the purity and sincerity of my intentions. 
It is but an act of justice to add, that nothing had been said, by either 
of these gentlemen, which was considered by me as offensive, or as 
arising from any unkindness of feeling toward me, nor was it in refe- 
rence to either of them I had alluded to an assault which I deemed it 
my duty to notice. 

Mr. Yickers then again addressed the meeting, urged the importance 
of "money considerations," the necessity for it when the collector came 
for his taxes, and various other matters, but did not disclaim or reply 
to my remarks about arraying one class of citizens against another. 

The resolutions were then read as reported, and adopted. Imme- 
diately on its being announced that they were carried, I offered the 
resolution, of which a copy has been hereinbefore given. I stated to 
the meeting that just before leaving my office, this resolution had been 
prepared, to be offerred only in the event of the failure of the Commit- 
tee to report something of the kind, and finding nothing like it in their 
report, and believing it proper the feeling of our State in this respect 
should be fully known, I had now to submit it, and could only antici- 
pate Its passage, without the slightest opposition. Having been ex- 
plained, the resolution was put to vote, and to ray utter surprise, but a 
comparatively small number of voices were heard in favor of it. I rose 
at once, considerably excited, and said, surely there was some misun- 
derstanding — that I could not believe there could be picked out of 
Kent County, such a number, or any considerable number of its citizens, 
who would reject such a proposition, if understood; it was in short, 
that we would go with the South and not with the North, provided the 
North persisted in denying us those ri^jJi's ivhich the Constitvlion gave us, 
and concluded by asking a division. The chair requested those who 
were in favor of the resolution to stand. 

To my amazement, a very large majority continued sitting, amongst 
them, I observed several of those who had signed the call for the meet- 
ing. I then left the room, under the impression that the political 
atmosphere was not a very healthy one. Some one in the News, next 
following this meeting, has attempted what professes to be a statement 
of the I'licts. It would seem as if some apology were deemed necessary 
for a vote, that I confess my previous opinion was, would have passed 
any where in this State, except at an abolition meeting. Excuse seems 



11 

to be tLonght necessary by this gratuitous and veracious fact stater. 
The gentleman who prepared the proceedings for publication, adopted 
the wise course of " keeping dark." The resolution was not noticed, 
persons who only know by what they learn from that notice in the 
News, would be utterly ignorant of what was done by the meeting, in 
relation to it, in fact would not know from those published proceedings 
that any resolution had been offered by me. 

But it is very certain, some of the fast friends, who participated in 
that meeting, and voted for the resolutions of the Committee, were 
excited and incensed at the treatment of this resolution. It would not 
do therefore to "shy" it altogether.-""-' Hence the garbled statement 
alluded to, and other comments in the News. 

One would judge from these, that I was an indelicate intruder, a 
person, who it might be expected, would not be allowed the privilege of 
any other, the most unimportant person present. 

"Why how is this? How does it comport with this boasted notion 
of an invitation to all ? I professed to be as ardently attached to the 
Union and the Constitution as any of them — the writers in the News 
do not deny this, then why should I be refused a common privilege? 

But " the resolution was kept in his pocket until near the close of 
the meeting instead of being handed to the Committee, as is the usual 
course," thus " managed to say the least in a very extraordinary manner." 
Now this will induce any casual reader to suppose that other resolu- 
tions were offered in the meeting, that the opportunity to offer mine 
was afforded, and neglected, until all the work of the Convention was 
so far ended as to make the time particularly unfit and inappropriate? 
when it "was suddenly sprung upon the people." Now each of these 
assertions the writer must have known to be untrue. No invitation 
was given to any one to present resolutions, to go to the Committee, not 
a resolution in point of fact was so offered. The Committee as soon as 
named were asked to retire, the resolutions I presume were "cut and 
dried," prepared beforehand, and no opportunity occured when this one 
could with propriety be offered, until the report of the Committee was 
received and acted upon. My resolution was written just as I was 
leaving my office, with the ink scarcely dry ; was taken up in my hand, 
and put into my hat, when it was placed on the desk near me, the 
paper seen, I have no doubt, by many around me. It was impossible 
for me to know what the Committee would report, not being consulted 
or advised with by any of the gentlemen who signed the call. If the 
Committee had reported such a resolution, mine certainly would not 
have been presented, as I stated to the meeting. Of course this could 



12 

only he known when the report was read. After reading that report, 
the first question of necessity was on adopting it, no other proposition 
was in order, except to amend, alter or substitute — this was no pa'-t of 
my purpose: not doubting that the passage of these was a foregone 
conclusion. I did not say one word about them, except to decline 
voting. As soon then as they were discussed, and voted on, and not 
one moment before, the proper time arrived for any additional resolu- 
tion to be offered, and at that time precisely this was oflered. Now 
the News writer knew all this, just as well as any one else, then why 
use language to deceive, and mislead his readers into the belief of a 
statement just the reverse of th^ruth? 

As to the "Secession doctrine" which some Avere uncharitable 
enough "to say I had argued," intending thereby insidiously, but 
irresponsibly to assert it, as also the poor excuse that I was a delegate 
to the Conference Convention, these items of charge have been disposed 
of, nailed to the counter as base coin. A further apology is found, by 
this self-constituted organ, claiming to know all opinions of this very 
large majority of five-hundred persons, in the fact, that "the time had 
not arrived to decide," and "others had not made up their minds." 
The first objection should have led to a suggestion for delay, to post- 
pone; but not one 'individual of the five-hundred intimated such a 
course, or such a reason for it; and as to the last, it is, I believe, a 
slander upon the good people of the county. Long after these political 
troubles had commenced, I had heard of but one individual in our 
community — of course, avowed abolitionists, are not included, who was 
willing to express his preference to go with the North if compeled to 
secede. There are others now, I am aware, and I fear there are those 
who are endeavoring to instil, and extend this abominable notion. But 
that there are any considerable number of our citizens, willing to re- 
main with the Northern section of the broken up Union, even when 
that North shall " persistemly refuse to accord to us the practical 
security for our property, which the Constitution contemplates and 
demands." I do not, and will not believe. 

Let it be remembered, that this is the resolution, not only a simple 
question of going to the North, or the South, in case of seperation, but 
a going to the North alter a "persistent refusal by it of our conslilu- 
tioualrigJitsy 

In short, the question is, to live at the last end of a Northern Con- 
federacy, degraded, dishonored, and disgraced, as we must be if we 
submit to the deprivation of our rights plainly given by the Constitu- 
tion, while every other Slave State shall have indignantly spurned such 



13 

a humiliating connection. The people are not ready for this! If they 
be not muzzled by persuasion, that party ties require them to suppress 
their honest impulses; if they be not deceived by artful leaders, who 
have concealed, ulterior, and mischievous objects in view, they will, I 
am still persuaded, be willing, in a calm moment, to denounce the no- 
tion of abject submission, under such circumstances, to the dominion of 
admitted oppression — and not in the alternative, not to be "chained to the 
car of South Carolina," as the writer falsely intimates — but as in the 
express language of the resolution, to go with "our sister Border 
States of the South," glorified Virginia and Co. Yes, my fellow-citi. 
zens, I will yet believe tliat the blood of our sires is still so far uncor- 
rupted by venality, that whereas they were willing, and read}^, to stake 
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in defence of their 
country's rights, we are not so degenerate as to sell ourselves for a 
price, into degradation and disgrace. How then could any sane man 
regard this as a "firebrand" thrown before the meeting? A firebrand 
is something destructive, dangerous, calculated to create alarm. Is 
there anything in this resolution of that character. It was not the first 
time the citizens cf the county had been invited to consider this matter. 
A resolution passed by acclamation on the 8th January, had expressed 
the same thing. It was then all right — why all wrong, why a firebrand, 
a month after? The same remarks which apply to the charges against 
me, and the criticism on my addresses in Kent, may be made in answer 
to those against my address to the Convention in Baltimore. Eead it, I 
beg you, and see if you can find fault with it. I have received warm 
and strong expressions of thankfulness, for its conservative tone, from 
those who had been made to fear mischief from that body, but it was 
reserved for the paper at my home, or those who write for it, to find in 
it the elements of heresy, secession, and treason. And to do this the 
more effectually, facts are perverted, assurances made to the public are 
rejected, bad motives are gratuitously assigned, and opinions sanctioned 
by you by acclamation, and entertained in common by those who are 
regarded as model patriots, arc taunted with equivocal interrogatories, 
and a defence of Northern aggression, which cannot but result from 
some latent purpose. An ingenious effort is made, to shift responsi- 
bility from .the Northern States to tlie Federal Government. You are 
triumphantly asked, "what has the General Government done? "Did 
not Mr. Fillmore enforce the fugitive slave law by military force," &c. &c. 
Now, our complaints are not of what is done at "Washington, except 
as to the encouragement there openly given to those, who in their 



14 

respective States, violate our rights, steal our property, and abuse our 
citizens. It is the people, and States of the North^ of whom complaint 
is made. Do you not all know — every man of you — that our Slaves 
are constantly seduced to run away — that aid is continually furnished 
them by Northern people, to get beyond our reach — that when we pur- 
sue them, our people are mobbed by crowds of blacks and whites — 
that when these dangers are conquered, and a judicial decision had, 
they are seized and rescued by mobs, and their owners, or their agents, 
assailed with violence. Do you not know, that an agent has been con- 
signed to the Penitentiary for aiding in the rccaj)ture of a fugitive 
slave — that Mr. Gorsuch and Mr. Kennedy were killed, in attempting 
to retake their slaves, and their murderers acquitted — and do you not 
know, that this is in harmony with Laws passed by State authority — 
not the work of a ftiv fanatics^ as some would have you believe — and 
do you not know, that when criminals have been demanded, as the 
Constitution provides, the Governors of States have determined not to 
surrender them, because in their States these were not regarded as 
crimes? Look at the late case of Anderson, who committed the murder 
of his master, who resisted his escape, and the English jurists say he 
had a right to kill his master if he interfered with his attempt to 
escape. Are yo\x to be insulted after all this, with the question, what 
wrongs have you sufl'ered, because at the tail of the question the words 
by the General Government are appended? 

Yes, it is true Mr. l^'illmore faithfully performed this, as he did all his 
duties — he enforced the arrest and delivery of* Burns in Boston. Why 
did the Ntius, by its silence, screen the North from the merited disgrace 
of this case? Why not tell the whole truth, and inform its readers 
that Judge Loring, the officer who had the courage and the honesty to 
do his duty, was ignominiously degraded from the Bench, of which he 
was an ornament, for this very act — not another charge against him? 
And it is with such folks that we are to remain, when kicked, cuffed, de- 
graded and dishonored; to whom we are to submit, even when denied 
plain constitutional rights 1 No, my fellow-citizens, if such is the 
covert design of these long-winded columns, they will never accomplish 
the purpose designed. If the motive is to gratify a vindictive feeling 
against me, by these writers, to destroy the confidence, gained by a resi- 
dence of more than three score and ten years amongst you, discharging 
as I huj)c you will agree, during all ray adult life, the duties of my 
position, with integrity, if this be all, now to rob me of the just reward, 
of an honest life, the respect of the community, why I shall hope to 



V 



15 

over live the attack: but if this is only the means bj which jour 
venality is to be excited, your manly feelings subdued, and your hio-h 
sense of patriotic pride, and national honor corrupted, then let every 
man be wide awake to the insidous effort, and repel, with scorn and 
mdignation, the first dawning of such a daring attempt to seduce you. 
Your interests and mine are precisely the same, and I feel quite con- 
vinced you will not be persuaded to believe I would do anything to 
harm you or the country. ^ 

Your fellow citizen, 

E. F. CHAMBERS. 
Chester Town, 5 March, 1861. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 703 112 7 



